Boundary Review Meetings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything about this boundary process has been a disgrace, culminating in the delayed release of the final proposals and the scant time families will have to review them before the public hearing.

Reid should have been fired by now. The idiots on this School Board need to be replaced as well.

What really bothers me are the wasted resources that FCPS has put into the boundary review. How many additional teachers could’ve been hired for the same amount of staff and consulting resources that have been used for a comprehensive boundary review that very few people want and most ardently oppose.

Just such a rank waste.

+1
Can't wait for someone to FOIA how much we spent on THRU. Guarantee it is far more than $500K initially awarded.
Not to mention all the staff prep for meetings, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything about this boundary process has been a disgrace, culminating in the delayed release of the final proposals and the scant time families will have to review them before the public hearing.

Reid should have been fired by now. The idiots on this School Board need to be replaced as well.

What really bothers me are the wasted resources that FCPS has put into the boundary review. How many additional teachers could’ve been hired for the same amount of staff and consulting resources that have been used for a comprehensive boundary review that very few people want and most ardently oppose.

Just such a rank waste.

+1
Can't wait for someone to FOIA how much we spent on THRU. Guarantee it is far more than $500K initially awarded.
Not to mention all the staff prep for meetings, etc.

And how much each committee member in BRAC was awarded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything about this boundary process has been a disgrace, culminating in the delayed release of the final proposals and the scant time families will have to review them before the public hearing.

Reid should have been fired by now. The idiots on this School Board need to be replaced as well.

What really bothers me are the wasted resources that FCPS has put into the boundary review. How many additional teachers could’ve been hired for the same amount of staff and consulting resources that have been used for a comprehensive boundary review that very few people want and most ardently oppose.

Just such a rank waste.

+1
Can't wait for someone to FOIA how much we spent on THRU. Guarantee it is far more than $500K initially awarded.
Not to mention all the staff prep for meetings, etc.

And how much each committee member in BRAC was awarded.

Did committee members get paid?

[Anonymous]

The reward for BRAC members was pushing the redistricting of other kids rather than their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reward for BRAC members was pushing the redistricting of other kids rather than their own.

From what I've seen so far, this appears to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything about this boundary process has been a disgrace, culminating in the delayed release of the final proposals and the scant time families will have to review them before the public hearing.

Reid should have been fired by now. The idiots on this School Board need to be replaced as well.

What really bothers me are the wasted resources that FCPS has put into the boundary review. How many additional teachers could’ve been hired for the same amount of staff and consulting resources that have been used for a comprehensive boundary review that very few people want and most ardently oppose.

Just such a rank waste.

+1
Can't wait for someone to FOIA how much we spent on THRU. Guarantee it is far more than $500K initially awarded.
Not to mention all the staff prep for meetings, etc.

And how much each committee member in BRAC was awarded.

Did committee members get paid?

Thats what I’m asking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I contacted the school board about Oakton Middle School to see if they want to do it.

Excitingly, policies 8320 - Site and Building Acquisition , 8310 - Site Planning and Development, and 8230 - School Design are all being reviewed, meaning if we plant the seed in far enough, it will come to fruition!

Yes, build another school in a time of shrinking K—12 school population, and an increase in private and home school options.

An idea sufficiently dumb enough that FCPS might buy into it.

Its not shrinking.

Shrinking is going to be the default everywhere due to demographic changes. The next boundary change in the future will be about closing schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I contacted the school board about Oakton Middle School to see if they want to do it.

Excitingly, policies 8320 - Site and Building Acquisition , 8310 - Site Planning and Development, and 8230 - School Design are all being reviewed, meaning if we plant the seed in far enough, it will come to fruition!

Yes, build another school in a time of shrinking K—12 school population, and an increase in private and home school options.

An idea sufficiently dumb enough that FCPS might buy into it.

Its not shrinking.

Shrinking is going to be the default everywhere due to demographic changes. The next boundary change in the future will be about closing schools.

Closing schools can co-exist with opening schools and redistricting. It's a big county.

They are going to overcrowd some schools with this round of boundary changes so they are setting things up for doing more than closing schools in five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They'll need at least 3 new or expanded middle schools if they ever expect to move to 6-8 county wide to align with most of the rest of the country.

No one wants to move to 6-8

Most of the middle schools are 7-8.

The 6-8 middle schools need to be eliminated so the middle schools are uniformly 7-8.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything about this boundary process has been a disgrace, culminating in the delayed release of the final proposals and the scant time families will have to review them before the public hearing.

Reid should have been fired by now. The idiots on this School Board need to be replaced as well.

What really bothers me are the wasted resources that FCPS has put into the boundary review. How many additional teachers could’ve been hired for the same amount of staff and consulting resources that have been used for a comprehensive boundary review that very few people want and most ardently oppose.

Just such a rank waste.

+1
Can't wait for someone to FOIA how much we spent on THRU. Guarantee it is far more than $500K initially awarded.
Not to mention all the staff prep for meetings, etc.

And how much each committee member in BRAC was awarded.

Did committee members get paid?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything about this boundary process has been a disgrace, culminating in the delayed release of the final proposals and the scant time families will have to review them before the public hearing.

Reid should have been fired by now. The idiots on this School Board need to be replaced as well.

What really bothers me are the wasted resources that FCPS has put into the boundary review. How many additional teachers could’ve been hired for the same amount of staff and consulting resources that have been used for a comprehensive boundary review that very few people want and most ardently oppose.

Just such a rank waste.

+1
Can't wait for someone to FOIA how much we spent on THRU. Guarantee it is far more than $500K initially awarded.
Not to mention all the staff prep for meetings, etc.

And how much each committee member in BRAC was awarded.

Most BRAC members chosen to represent their pyramids fought boundary changes. There were a lot of hands-picked BRAC members but even they tended to pushback against most of the changes.

It turns out that democrats and republicans alike don’t like boundary changes.

BRAC representatives who represented their schools also had to go to periodic meetings where they frequently asked for data that was never provided to them. BRAC members are heroes for dealing with FCPS. And received zero dollars and less time with their families for the thankless work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll need at least 3 new or expanded middle schools if they ever expect to move to 6-8 county wide to align with most of the rest of the country.

No one wants to move to 6-8

Most of the middle schools are 7-8.

The 6-8 middle schools need to be eliminated so the middle schools are uniformly 7-8.

That probably means building another ES in Mason and closing Holmes MS, but that’s better than foisting 6-8 middle schools on communities that don’t want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll need at least 3 new or expanded middle schools if they ever expect to move to 6-8 county wide to align with most of the rest of the country.

No one wants to move to 6-8

Most of the middle schools are 7-8.

The 6-8 middle schools need to be eliminated so the middle schools are uniformly 7-8.

Why are people against 6-8 for middle school? Not growing up around here having elementary go from pre K-6 is wild to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll need at least 3 new or expanded middle schools if they ever expect to move to 6-8 county wide to align with most of the rest of the country.

No one wants to move to 6-8

Most of the middle schools are 7-8.

The 6-8 middle schools need to be eliminated so the middle schools are uniformly 7-8.

Why are people against 6-8 for middle school? Not growing up around here having elementary go from pre K-6 is wild to me.

Because sixth graders are 12 years old. My kids' sixth grade teacher did a great job transitioning them BEFORE they went to middle school. Better than transitioning AT middle school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll need at least 3 new or expanded middle schools if they ever expect to move to 6-8 county wide to align with most of the rest of the country.

No one wants to move to 6-8

Most of the middle schools are 7-8.

The 6-8 middle schools need to be eliminated so the middle schools are uniformly 7-8.

Why are people against 6-8 for middle school? Not growing up around here having elementary go from pre K-6 is wild to me.

Because sixth graders are 12 years old. My kids' sixth grade teacher did a great job transitioning them BEFORE they went to middle school. Better than transitioning AT middle school.

Ok, so why are 12 year olds in the same school as a 4/5 year old? But being with 14 year olds is too much?